-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
Implicit time stepping discretization #33
Comments
I typed the algebra for implicit time stepping. A couple of time to point out: |
So basically, this assumes that I am not sure if that is an acceptable assumption? Is there any example you can find that shows this is the right approach? Take a look at http://www.princeton.edu/~moll/HACTproject.htm and see if you can find precedent. |
One other consideration here: there is a chance that the implicit method here is simply not appropriate for this type of PDE. Typically it is the preferred method for stability, but those are for PDEs with initial conditions. If we can't find other examples of code which solves using an implicit time scheme, and you can't figure out how to do it without assuming an additional condition, then we should rethink whether it is possible. |
I could not find example to show that the approach is correct. I tried to search in the PDE literature and I think this implicit stepping time method may require initial conditions to deterministically solve PDEs. |
OK, the evidence is building that this is simply not the right approach in this case. I am going to leave this issue open for a little final research in the new year (or if the current method seems unstable). But lets leave it for now, and I will comment out the latex code. |
This is a continuation of #31
The trickiest part of this is figuring out what to do at the$t=0$ and $t=T$ steps. On the right hand side, we want this to nest solving the stationary distribution. On the left hand side, we need to remember that there is no initial condition.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: